Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Networking

Feds Seize $78M of Bogus Chinese Cisco Gear 197

Posted by kdawson
from the perfect-for-man-in-the-middle dept.
Ian Lamont writes "The IDG News Service is reporting that US and Canadian authorities have made more than 400 seizures of counterfeit Cisco hardware from China in an ongoing investigation that started in 2005. The most recent seizure was last Friday in Toronto, where the RCMP charged two people and a company with distributing large quantities of counterfeit network components to companies in the US through the Internet. The RCMP seized approximately 1,600 pieces of counterfeit network hardware with an estimated value of $2 million, says the report. According to another source, bogus Cisco gear from China typically includes network modules, WAN interface cards, gigabit interface converters, and less expensive routers."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Feds Seize $78M of Bogus Chinese Cisco Gear

Comments Filter:
  • by seanadams.com (463190) * on Friday February 29, 2008 @12:19PM (#22601846) Homepage
    I rather doubt that much of this equipment is truly "counterfeit", at least in the usual sense of a cloned design such as the iClone. Rather, what happens is that the contract manufacturer will buy extra parts and make more units than Cisco actually ordered, and then those units go out the back door after hours. They might have illegitimate serial numbers or might be missing the authenticity stickers on some internal chips, but they are otherwise identical.

    It's a very difficult problem to manage unless you have trusted people overseeing the entire manufacturing operation. The amount of gross margin in Cisco gear makes this activity extremely profitable.
    • by Brian Gordon (987471) on Friday February 29, 2008 @12:22PM (#22601886)
      Yeah that confused me too.. it's apparently perfectly good equipment, but they're not licensed to use the Cisco name. And of course they stole the design (I don't mean in an IP sense, I mean that I suspect that there was actual theivery involved in obtaining it).
      • by 0100010001010011 (652467) on Friday February 29, 2008 @12:29PM (#22602002)
        Or it could be a '3rd shift' operation. Same factory, same 'workers' but what they do after the 1st and 2nd "authentic" shifts are finished is swap out all 'good' electronics for cheap replacements.

        Say Cisco specified a 1 ohm SMT resistor that has a .09% failure rate and costs $1/per (yes, it's just an example). When the '3rd shift' comes on board, they swap those out for 1 ohm resistors with a 5% failure rate but that only cost $.50/per. So it may even be the same assembly line but the components are much cheaper and not to Cisco specification, which is why Cisco doesn't stamp them as 'authorized'. And also why they may fail down the line long after the seller has disappeared.
        • by timeOday (582209)

          ...swap out all 'good' electronics for cheap replacements.

          Maybe not even that; cutting out the American overlords means fat profits even if you don't change the specs at all. I heard of a case where some shoe maker, maybe Addidas but I forget, dumped their old Chinese manufacturer for a new one. But the old one just kept making the same product, just exporting it through different channels (which is obviously illegal since they were no longer authorized to use the trademark).

        • by KZigurs (638781)
          Who says it involves substandard components? All manufacturing lines have spare parts to cover for defect rate in supplies. Had a good, accident/fuckups free day? Great - we have parts for a quick run of 25 more...
        • by dwater (72834)
          It's not clear to me if it is 'fake' or not. To me 'fake' is where someone buys one item and copies it many times and sells the copies. The second reference in TFA (which could well be completely unrelated) implies this stuff could be the real thing, same production line/etc (perhaps QA is lower or something, since the Chinese don't want to pay for such high quality). I wonder why they don't put on a different series of serial numbers so they can easily tell which ones are not for the US market (unless they
    • by LingNoi (1066278)
      Same with clothing except it might have incorrect spelling or didn't quite pass other QC tests.
      • by fyoder (857358) on Friday February 29, 2008 @12:27PM (#22601954) Homepage Journal
        According to the article, could be the same stuff:

        What has happened is that many of the companies that do the outsourcing for Cisco now run an extra shift and sell the now counterfeit hardware out the back door. After all, they have the manufacturing capability, the expertise and the full blessing of Cisco.
        It's not the same as 2nds, or cheap knock offs with fake labels. It would suck if you were getting duped, esp. if paying full Cisco prices, but for a very steep discount there are probably customers who would knowingly buy these even though it means forgoing warranty.
        • by TheLink (130905)
          Well I think some Cisco warranties aren't lifetime, and keeping cheap "spares/standbys" around might get rather tempting ;).
          • by LinuxDon (925232)
            In my experience, Cisco warranty is rather limited compared to the price you're paying. I've personally never seen any of their equipment having lifetime warranty. (Although I might be wrong on this!)
            In contrast to the HP Procurve equipment, which is sold with next business day lifetime warranty at no additional charge.
            • by TheLink (130905)
              A long time ago a customer sent in an Cisco 508 CS access server (older than the cisco 2500 series- yep _old_ ) for repair to a company I worked for (we were a Cisco reseller).

              So I contacted Cisco TAC - told them it was really dead. The Cisco TAC guy got us sent a new one - well as new as something like that can be - because it was obsolete and the replacement was from old stock.

              I asked them how much it'll cost - the TAC guy didn't appear to care. I guess his job was to close cases and make people happy.

              In
    • by Scareduck (177470) on Friday February 29, 2008 @12:31PM (#22602058) Homepage Journal
      The attractiveness of low cost manufacturing in China seems to be inevitably offset by some other negative, whether it be the creation of instant competitors once the contract manufacturer figures out how to reach their customers' customers, or ersatz ingredients (melamine in dog food last year for instance). Remind me again, why is free trade with China such a great deal for the developed world?
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by BlowHole666 (1152399)
        Because the CEO wants to save a buck and would rather take that risk of China getting/understanding how to build last years model. Instead of paying the $10 an hour to the American worker where he can pay 10 employees $1 an hour (yes it is just an example I don't know the exchange rate). It all comes down to greed. It looks good on paper but in the long run it gets you into trouble.
        • by emilper (826945) on Friday February 29, 2008 @02:14PM (#22603468)
          Hate to blow a hole in your argument, but it's about labour availability, not about labour price. I am sure there might be 100000 competent and unemployed developers and 500000 unemployed blue collar workers in US, but if Cisco would want to build a factory in [insert random US location here] he won't find the 2000 employees needed to get things started.

          The cause of offshoring/outsourcing is not labour cost, but labour mobility: the price of labour in electronics is very low, around 5%, but you cannot do without people. Giving better salaries is not a solution. It was tried during the IT bubble but it did not work: the companies got more expensive workers but not in greater numbers, since all competed over the same number of workers, and due to the limitations on immigration the game was a zero sum game. This problem is much more grave in EU than in US (imagine needing a Green Card in order to leave California and find work in Florida) so factories are moved not only to China or Eastern Europe, but even to US.

          Of course in the long run it gets you into trouble, but in order to have a "long run", the companies that moved their operations in other countries attempted to have a "short run" first: they would be already dead without the ability to expand.

          • by khchung (462899)
            The parent post hit it right on. Literally millions of chinese workers left their homes and families in the rural areas, and went to live and work in the cities where the factories are! The simple fact that they are willing to do this while US factory workers won't is what makes it worth the trouble to build factories in China.

            When the workers in China got rich enough (relatively speaking) that they are no longer willing to leave families behind, you will see those factories either spread to the rural are
        • by sjames (1099)

          Because the CEO wants to save a buck and would rather take that risk of China getting/understanding how to build last years model. Instead of paying the $10 an hour to the American worker where he can pay 10 employees $1 an hour (yes it is just an example I don't know the exchange rate). It all comes down to greed. It looks good on paper but in the long run it gets you into trouble.

          Besides that, by the time the bad news comes around, he's deposited his bonuses, sold his options, and deployed his golden

      • Because making those products in US, Germany, Japan or Taiwan (BTW both used to be doing the same things as China,) will not be price competitive; production in other 3rd world countries will have the same or worse problems. For the companies, all the extra costs and troubles still cannot negate the benefits. For the buyers, prices are always an important consideration. Quality is not the only criterion and is hardly quantifiable. Especially for electronics, my new laptop will be worth practically $0.00 in

      • Because investors reward the promise of lowering prices by outsourcing, and investors reward the short-term profitability of a company that is seeing currently lower prices (and those same investors crucify the company later, when all the short-term decisions it has made to please them come back to bite it in the butt.)
        • It's all about making a bet that the short term reward is big enough and in a short enough term, and that the long term consequences are far enough off.

          There's some rationality to it, but I think this kind of mindset is what drives executive salaries stratospheric -- *they* know what they're doing is long-term negative, so they need to be paid "up front".

          • I'd never thought about that aspect of ever-higher salaries. I thought that was mostly because everyone who is voting on increasing salaries is also getting higher salaries from other people doing the same thing -- an enormous groupthink -- but I really like your viewpoint, since it's much more direct and I think generally these feedback loops are pretty tight.

            The thing I find most painful about the short-term profit drive is that there isn't any way I can think of to break it, because it's not about infor
            • by swb (14022)
              The thing I find most painful about the short-term profit drive is that there isn't any way I can think of to break it

              Its got a bit of the tragedy of the commons to it -- the only way it will end is when the commons is overgrazed and everyone's flock starves.

              The big problem is that as business has become international, business leaders kind of stopped belonging to anywhere -- their loyalty is to the transnational meta-nation of "corporate executives" so they don't feel any sense of responsibility to any "p
              • I used the phrase 'tragedy of the commons' to describe this, once before, and was shouted down because at least one group of slashthink requires that there be a tangible resource before they admit the term.

                As a result I've started thinking of it as being like a herd of deer being chased towards a cliff by a wolf. Each deer knows that if they all stopped, a maximum of one would be killed, and every deer knows that if they keep going they're all going to die... but nobody is willing to stop first.

                The idea of
                • by swb (14022)
                  Unless you are actually willing to *own* the private plane, employ the pilots directly and run your own private airplane, I suspect that even the wealthy have to fly commercial occasionally, both for reasons of cost, availability of jets/pilots or bureaucracy (eg, contractual obligations that will not pay for private jet transit).

                  But -- I doubt that Brad Pitt or Lindsay Lohan take off their shoes at the security checkpoint or hunt for laptop outlets among the vinyl chairs at the gate like you and I do. I'm
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Z34107 (925136)

        Remind me again, why is free trade with China such a great deal for the developed world?

        Screw all the people who say "those evil CEOs want an extra dollar in the stock benefits" or whoever the current bogeyman is.

        Trade with China is good for the developed world because they can make some things a lot cheaper than we can. Practically everything we buy is cheaper, either directly or indirectly, because of Chinese production.

        The higher standards of living everyone enjoys comes with the cost of some do

        • by sjames (1099)

          Except that it's proving to be a false economy lately. Just ask the former dog owners. Or for that matter the parents of the dead kids in Panama.

          The real question is after the losses from counterfeiting and the extra expenses to make sure toys and healthcare products are free of GHB, lead, ethylene glycol, melamine and anything else that nobody in their right mind would put into either, is it still a better deal?

    • by BSAtHome (455370)
      There are both surplus production being sold on the black market and there is counterfeit stuff. I have handled a batch GBICs which were in original wrapping, but on closer inspection they all had the same serial number (not on the sticker, but read using snmp). So they are probably surplus. However, another batch was clearly counterfeit as they didn't properly fit the slots.
    • by jmorris42 (1458) * <jmorris@@@beau...org> on Friday February 29, 2008 @12:49PM (#22602328)
      > The amount of gross margin in Cisco gear makes this activity extremely profitable.

      It isn't just that. In any other tech industry you would see 'legit' clones, i.e. ones that were sold AS clones, with someone else's name on it. But you can't do that with Cisco gear. If you put any non-cisco stuff in one it voids the service contract. No service contract no bug fixes. Unpatched gear is an accident waiting to happen.

      Personally I'm happy as hell. We don't have much Cisco gear and I didn't buy it (donated) but it has been enough of a PITA that I absolutely HATE Cisco. When I had to scrounge up some extra ports I certainly hope I managed to get the knockoffs and avoid giving those rat bastards one cent more than absoluteley required. Had to put the unit back under a service contract before I could get a IOS with device drivers. Tell me, who still charges for (basically) device drivers and security fixes?

      Adn their hardware is so pathetic. Open one up sometimes and check out just how little is inside one. Ponder just how little they are paying those Chinese contract manufacturers for the hardware they then jackup to such stupid prices. And don't tell me it is the software either, they used to just be running BSD with the serial numbers filed off and with the volume they do they can afford some software devels. As for support it ain't in the price of the product, they sell that as a extra and for all intents and purposes only to those who have also paid em a crapload to get their people certified.

      By being able to milk hardware, software and support they probably make Gates & Balmer jealous.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Itninja (937614)
      So how is that not counterfeit? By definition counterfeiting is an imitation that is made with the intent to deceptively represent its content or origins. Isn't that precisely what happened here?
      • by Tacvek (948259)

        So how is that not counterfeit? By definition counterfeiting is an imitation that is made with the intent to deceptively represent its content or origins. Isn't that precisely what happened here?

        Well, true, but counterfeit generally has the connotation of being of lesser quality or not working at all. I mean there is a bit of a difference between a cheap lookalike knockoff, and a physically identical unit that was merely not authorized. Most people think of the former when the hear the word counterfeit. Of course, nobdy would argue that money produced after-hours in the same way is not counterfeit, but people seem to apply a different standard to counterfeit devices.

      • The people doing the factory work probably has no idea what is going on. Let alone think they are counterfeiting. They are just showing up to work. The people who are doing the bargain buying are not even Chinese. Look at the names: Todd Richard, Michael Edman, Robert Edman. Do the workers even know they are imitating?
      • by sjames (1099)

        So how is that not counterfeit? By definition counterfeiting is an imitation that is made with the intent to deceptively represent its content or origins. Isn't that precisely what happened here?

        Counterfeit usually implies a knock-off product meant to be mistaken for the real thing. The "quality" of a counterfiet is determined by just how hard it is to distinguish. Most counterfiets are just good enough to pass a casual inspection.

        The not-Cisco gear is fully identical right down to the last detail. In

    • by jellomizer (103300) * on Friday February 29, 2008 @12:54PM (#22602400)
      Sorney, MagnetBox? I know a Genuine Peniphonics when I see one.
    • It's a very difficult problem to manage unless you have trusted people overseeing the entire manufacturing operation. The amount of gross margin in Cisco gear makes this activity extremely profitable.

      And this is where outsourcing becomes so viciously dangerous. When considering outsourcing, it's important to limit it to only those areas that are not "core competencies". If your core business is to manufacture hardware, it's just stupid to outsource manufacturing hardware. If you're in the business of hostin
    • by AbRASiON (589899) *
      This used to happen a lot with DVD's and frankly bravo!
      If the DVD is identical to the original, same packaging and the only difference is I'm not paying universal or paramount big $ well good times for all.
      DVD's are somewhat cheaper now but perhaps the same thing will happen for blu-rays (sorry but 40$ AUD (35$ US) for a movie is just unreasonable, HD or not)

      Drop DVD's to 12$ AUD (9$ US) and Blu-ray to 25$ AUD or 20$ US (approximately) and sales will swing up.
      Their loss, I'll just go without for the moment.
    • Judging by other types of counterfeits coming out of china, there probably are more traditional counterfeits of networking equipment coming out as well. By this, I mean, generic hardware put into a very convincing Cisco shell and stamped with the Cisco logo. For example, there's the iPhone ripoffs everyone's probably familiar with, as well as high-end guitar ripoffs which wouldn't fool a musician in person, but might fool an amateur, especially over the net.

      I can't help but suspect that those who are apo

    • by kurt555gs (309278)
      One thing I would like to see is how "78M" was arived at. Was this the price the knock off equipment was to be sold for, or was it what Cisco would have sold identicle equipment for at list price.

      The reason I am asking this is to find out what Cisco equipment is really worth.

      I am assuming that this knock off equipment is identicle to Cisco, at a small fraction of the price, (aka what the equipment is really worth, minus the obscene markup Cisco puts on.)

      maybe $"78M" that Cisco charges is really only worth
  • And can I get 20 minutes of completely unsupervised access?

    I'll even waive the disposal fees.
  • What genius figured out the Linksys stuff was actually fake Cisco Chinese knockoffs? Explains their routers intermittently dropping connections all the time. All that stupid Chinese solder and boards are screwing them up. The water on the island makes better wafers.
  • So, um... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by scubamage (727538) on Friday February 29, 2008 @12:37PM (#22602144)
    when are they auctioning this stuff off..? I'd love to get me some pods together on the cheap.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by SuperBanana (662181)

      when are they auctioning this stuff off..?

      "Counterfeit" (or in this case, unlicensed) goods are usually destroyed.

      • by scubamage (727538)
        God, thats such a damn waste :( At least donate it to a local university or something for CCNA prospectives.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by seanadams.com (463190) *
          God, thats such a damn waste :( At least donate it to a local university or something for CCNA prospectives.

          You're missing the whole point of this. Having these products in circulation is extremely detrimental to Cisco. Not just in terms of lost sales, but also that people will be calling in for tech support, attempting to get warranty replacements, putting it up on eBay, etc. Even if you donate it to a charitable cause it is costing them real money in a direct sense, and also tarnishing the brand and piss
          • Re:So, um... (Score:4, Insightful)

            by scubamage (727538) on Friday February 29, 2008 @02:08PM (#22603356)
            No, its a waste, plain and simple. They don't tarnish Cisco's name because they're known to be counterfiet. If someone turned around and sold them, sure, that'd be bad. However I personally see no issue of using perfectly good hardware to train prospective students. The hardware is counterfiet, the IOS software on it would not be. It's a waste because it could be used. Throwing away something that can be used is the very definition of waste.
            • Throwing away something that can be used is the very definition of waste.

              I didn't say it's not a waste. I said you're missing the point.
  • by Doc Ruby (173196) on Friday February 29, 2008 @12:38PM (#22602154) Homepage Journal
    Other than the brand name on the boxes being fraudulent, what is the difference between this HW and the real Cisco products? If they're even close in quality, then catching these fraudsters will move Chinese manufacturers to market them under their own brands. Then they'll just be violating patents, not trademarks (and copyrights in the manuals). But then they'll be pressured to actually create their own better ways of doing it. Which is actual progress, even if not quite as profitable as the ripoff.

    If Chinese counterfeits can get marketed under their own brands, we'll actually have some price competition. And maybe when some American companies get killed by their OEM factories like Japanese manufacturers did to cameras and consumer electronics in the 1970s-80s, we'll see some more caution in shipping all their tech expertise overseas to create their competitors. They might be more likely to consider the less immediate costs of outsourcing from a country where the law (usually) protects things like intellectual property, contracts, labor and the environment.

    Or maybe every generation is doomed to watch America squander its hard-won tech leads for the sake of a few years of cheap manufacturing that then eats the parent for lunch.
    • by powerlord (28156)

      If Chinese counterfeits can get marketed under their own brands, we'll actually have some price competition. And maybe when some American companies get killed by their OEM factories like Japanese manufacturers did to cameras and consumer electronics in the 1970s-80s, we'll see some more caution in shipping all their tech expertise overseas to create their competitors. They might be more likely to consider the less immediate costs of outsourcing from a country where the law (usually) protects things like int

    • by Lanboy (261506)
      Cisco has won an injunction that prohibits Huawei from selling routers in the US.

      The router code is identical down to the security bugs.
  • ... bogus Cisco gear from China typically includes network modules, WAN interface cards, gigabit interface converters, and less expensive routers

    It's easy to identify this bogus gear in the wild. It's really really heavy, because it's made of lead.
  • Is is it about time to terminate China's Preferred Trade Status with all the problems with Chinese products that are dangerous, poisonous, fake, bogus and fraudulent. Both political parties have voted in favor of keeping China's preferred trade status. Why? It can't be the superior products we get to buy from China.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by sheph (955019)
      It could have something to do with all of the campaign contributions that come from large organizations manufacturing goods and services. Of course it could be that the general populous likes products that are dangerous, poisonous, fake, bogus and fraudulent. It's so hard to tell.
    • by Wildclaw (15718)
      It could have something to do with the -260 billion/year trade balance that the US currently have with China.

      If the US suddenly stopped trading with China, it would lose access to 320 billion/year of production, and ramping up to that production level would take a while possibly sending the whole of US into a new depression. China on the other hand would lose access to 60 billion/year of trade, most of which it could replace locally or get from other trading partners. Not being able to sell their products i
    • Because when products that could cost $5 from china start costing $7 or even $10, people will realize just how poorly our economy is doing.

      Covering up the cost of consumer goods is a great way to hide the declining strength of the dollar. "Oh, the dollar just dropped again. It's ok, we'll offset that by importing even cheaper crap."

      -b
  • They just had to look for stuff covered in all that lead paint.
  • yeah, right. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by peccary (161168) on Friday February 29, 2008 @12:47PM (#22602286)

    One of the operation's goals is to protect the public from network infrastructure failures associated with the counterfeits, the DOJ said.
    As opposed to network infrastructure failure caused by ships dragging their anchors through the Mediterranean. Or Verizon techs installing crap on their toplevel DNS servers.
    No, I think the goal is to protect the corporation. Not that I completely object to these actions, just that it's getting pretty tiresome to see the police always trotting out the public safety angle.
  • If you cant engineer it, then steal [usatoday.com] it.
  • by ErichTheRed (39327) on Friday February 29, 2008 @12:53PM (#22602386)
    It sounds like most of these Chinese counterfeiting cases have been manufacturers making exact copies of the items they were contracted to make, then selling them without the warranty, name, etc. for similar profit margins.

    How much of this is the manufacturer just building more than what they were supposed to, and how much of it is actually theft of intellectual property? I remember reading that the Soviet Union would go the IP theft route...obtain a computer from another country and totally reverse-engineer it so they could use a similar design. My bet is that these manufacturers just want to make more money and not necessarily use the same quality parts. (If you're building 1000 routers, the difference between a $10 transciever and a $100 one is big, for example. How worried should we be that, say, the manufacturer has reverse-engineered IOS and put it into their own gear?

    Either way, if my business was based on building clever hardware, I'd be worried about outsourcing the manufacturing to anyone, let alone a different country. However, there is absolutely no way to stop people from demanding cheaper goods. It's at the point where people are haggling over a few cents -- we're just addicted to low prices.

    I'm generally not one of these protectionist, "keep America working" types, but I can't see a good way out of this situation. All the scenarios are bad:
    - Go to war with China or cut off trade completely in some other fashion --> Huge price increases and emergency ramp-up of domestic production --> possibly a bad recession.
    - Continue as-is --> More poisoned or cloned merchandise and IP theft --> eventually a very bad situation for us.
    - Try to get China to comply with environmental and IP laws --> ???
    • by SL Baur (19540)

      I remember reading that the Soviet Union would go the IP theft route...obtain a computer from another country and totally reverse-engineer it so they could use a similar design.

      I recall reading something like that too, only it was a bit more blatant. Along the lines that careful examination of a supposedly Soviet made CPU had "Copyright Intel" buried in the guts of it.

      This isn't what I originally read, but here's a reference: http://www.cpushack.net/soviet-cpus.html [cpushack.net]

  • by Gadgit (1067790) on Friday February 29, 2008 @12:54PM (#22602396)
    Had actually received some of this gear unknowingly and while some of it does work...there were a few cases where that when a switch that would lose power the GBIC would not come back up in a 'no shut' state. Instead you had to console into the switch and issue a 'shut > no shut' on the interdace to get the port to come back. So while the technically do kind of work, it is not something I would recommend deploying in a mission critical switch/router.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jandrese (485)
      I have a suspicion that a lot of this third party resale equipment is the stuff that failed QA the first time around, but only barely. There's probably some overproduction in there as well, but it does make buying one of these discount routers a risky proposition.
    • by davburns (49244)

      That happens sometimes on gear you buy direct from cisco, too. The difference is that, if you're legit, you can call TAC and they'll send you replacement GBICs & SPFs.

      But then, I guess it might happen more often with some of the counterfitters. And there's no way to know if you're getting 100% cisco-like (except legality) stuff, or the cheapest possible knock-offs.

  • Does any of that Chinese Cisco shit actually work?

    Not that I want to buy it - just curious - can they make something that can be passed off as working hardware?

    If they can - that's kinda impressive IMHO
    • Actually, if the factory can make 100% of its run for Cisco in 80% of the time allocated, the crooked factory manager is likely to see no reason why he can't use the 20% of the time he saved to knock off a few copies. See the article below about "cleans". The knockoffs are probably indistinguishable from the real items, except they don't get QAed as thoroughly.

      • Is he really crooked, though? He'd be crooked by our standards, sure, but crooked is relative to the local laws under which you operate.
    • by imsabbel (611519)
      You mean like the chinese cisco shit cisco sells to everybody?
      If yes, then, yeah, it does.
  • ...when they help build the "great firewall of china". I think there is a delicious sense of irony in the Chinese copying their gear so they don't have to pay Cisco for more firewall gear.
    • by sethstorm (512897) *
      The question is if China is running counterfeit gear themselves, or if there were "assurances" that it'd be Cisco sanctioned.

If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on the shoulders of giants. -- Isaac Newton

Working...